Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Submit documents to WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion

Copy this address into your Tor browser. Advanced users, if they wish, can also add a further layer of encryption to their submission using our public PGP key.

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.

United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (UN OIOS) 1 Nov 2004 report titled "Audit of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture [AE2004-330-01]" relating to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report runs to 13 printed pages.

Simple text version follows

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR
AUD II-7-4 :4 (AE560/04) 1 November 2004
TO: Ms. Louise Arbour
High Commissioner for Human Rights
FROM: Egbert C. Kaltenbach, Director
Internal Audit Division II
Office of Internal Oversight Services
SUBJECT: OIOS Audit of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture
(AE2004/330/01)
1. I am pleased to submit the final report on the audit of the financial management of the
UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which was conducted between March and June
2004 at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) by Mr. Raja
Arumugham and Mr. Girma Gina. This audit was conducted in connection with the
independent evaluation undertaken by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Consulting Division
(MECD) of OIOS. The final evaluation report was issued on 20 September 2004.
2. A draft of this report was shared with the Chief of Treaties and Commission Branch,
OHCHR on 2 September 2004, whose comments, which were received in October 2004, are
reflected in the final report. I am pleased to note that most of the audit recommendations
contained in this final report have been accepted and that the Treaties and Commission
Branch, OHCHR has initiated their implementation. The table in paragraph 26 of the report
identifies those recommendations, which require further action to be closed. I wish to draw
your attention to recommendation 2 which OIOS considers to be of critical importance.
3. I wish to point to the recommendations contained in the OIOS evaluation report of
20 September 2004 and their link to the remaining recommendations listed in paragraph 26
of this report. The closure of these would depend on the implementation of the
recommendations contained in the evaluation report. I therefore would appreciate if you
could send us a copy of your replies to the MECD of OIOS as and when you submit it to
them.
4. Please note that OIOS is assessing the overall quality of its audit process. I therefore
kindly request that you consult with your managers who dealt directly with the auditors,
complete the attached client satisfaction survey form and return it to me under confidential
cover.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thank you for your cooperation.
Attachment: Client Satisfaction Survey Form
cc: Ms. C. Bertini, Under-Secretary-General for Management (by e-mail)
Ms. H. Featherstone, Executive Secretary, UN Board of Auditors
Mr. T. Rajaobelina, Deputy Director of External Audit (by e-mail)
Ms. M. Ize-Charrin, Chief of Treaties and Commission Branch, OHCHR (by e-mail)
Ms. K. Hinkle-Babul, Audit Focal Point, OHCHR (by e-mail)
Mr. M. Tapio, Programme Officer, OUSG, OIOS (by e-mail)
Ms. C. Chavez, Chief, Geneva Audit Section, OIOS (by e-mail)
Mr. R. Arumugham, Auditor-in-Charge (by e-mail)
Mr. D. Ti�ana, Auditing Assistant (by e-mail)
Mr. V. Guerassev, Director, MECD, OIOS (by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations
Office of Internal Oversight Services
Internal Audit Division II
Audit Report
Audit of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture
(AE2004/330/01)
Report No. E04/014R
Report date: 1 November 2004
Auditors: Mr. Raja ARUMUGHAM
Mr. Girma GINA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
Office of Internal Oversight Services
Internal Audit Division II
OIOS Audit of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (AE2004/330/01)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From March to June 2004, OIOS conducted an audit of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of
Torture (the Fund). The audit was conducted in connection with the independent evaluation
undertaken by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Consulting Division (MECD) of OIOS in
accordance with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Resolution 2003/32, adopted at its
fifty-ninth session. The audit covered the financial management of the Fund with grants amounting
to $12.5 million for 199 projects in 2002-2003. The Treaties and Commission Branch, OHCHR
has accepted all the recommendations made and is in the process of implementing them.
Approval of Grants
� According to the Guidelines of the Fund, funding for projects should not exceed one third of
the project's budget. However, for a significant number of projects, the requesting grantees did
not provide proof of funding sources that cover the remaining two thirds of the budget. For
projects where this information was available, the Secretariat of the Fund did not verify the
sources of these funds. Furthermore, for a substantial number of projects, the budgets showed
a lump sum amount, instead of listing detailed expenditures as required under the Guidelines.
A new guideline requires proof that other donors were contributing to the projects and this has
been applied to the applications received from November 2003.
� The Board did not establish any policy for reducing requested grants. In 2002, for 108 out of
the 176 projects, the approved grants were far below the amounts requested. Similarly in 2003
the practice prevailed. OIOS recommended that the Board of Trustees of the Fund should
establish guidelines to determine the size of the grants. OHCHR stated that the Board of
Trustees would be seized of the recommendations once they are formally transmitted to
OHCHR.
Pending grants
� The Guidelines do not establish a reasonable time limit up to which an approved grant can be
kept "pending." In 2001 and 2002, there were pending grants amounting to $160,000 and
$419,000 respectively. In the opinion of OIOS, grants should not be kept pending beyond one
year after its approval, so the funds can be used for other projects. The UNVFVT Secretariat
established a one- year time limit for `pending' grants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Grants
� In two out of ten emergency grants, $94,000 was paid in five instalments into the personal bank
account of the grantee. Making a series of continued emergency payments to an individual who
was not a victim and without review by the Board was not in compliance with the Guidelines.
OIOS recommended that the Board be informed ex-post facto on any emergency grants made
between sessions. The Board was informed of all emergency grants approved between sessions
during the 23rd Session of the Board of Trustees held in October 2004.
Financial Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation
� Contrary to the Guidelines, further grants for nearly half of the audited projects (13 out of 35)
were released even if the recipients did not submit the required audited financial statements.
The Guidelines lacked clarity as to the required format for the audited financial statements and
audit certificate. It was also not clear whether the audited financial statements were to cover the
entire project or only the grant portion.
� The financial statements submitted by the grantees did not appear to be in compliance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Standards and did not provide sufficient information as to
whether the grantees had complied with the conditions of the grant, i.e., spent the money for the
intended purpose and in accordance with the budget. Furthermore, there was no systematic
follow-up of the projects and the available spreadsheet did not contain adequate information for
monitoring and follow-up. OIOS recommended that the Secretariat establish a standardized
format for the audited financial statements on the use of the grant and in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Standards and establish proper financial monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms. Also, the Secretariat should not release further grants, if financial
reports for previous grants are overdue. OHCHR agreed that a standardized format for the
audited financial statements on the use of grants would be adopted. OHCHR also stated that
no grants have been released since 2003 where financial reports have not been received or if
when received these are not satisfactory.
- November 2004 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Paragraphs
I. INTRODUCTION 1-4
II. AUDIT OBJECTIVES 5
III. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 6�7
IV. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8 � 11
1. Approval of grants
2. Pending grants 12 � 14
3. Emergency grants 15 � 19
20 � 22
4. Financial reporting
23 - 25
5. Financial monitoring and evaluation
V. FURTHER ACTIONS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS 26
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
1. From March to June 2004, OIOS conducted an audit of the financial management of
the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (the Fund) at the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Geneva. The audit was conducted in connection
with the independent evaluation undertaken by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Consulting
Division (MECD) of OIOS, in accordance with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
resolution 2003/32 adopted at its fifty-ninth session. The audit was conducted in accordance
with the Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, promulgated by the
Institute of Internal Auditors and adopted by the Internal Audit Services of the United Nations
Organizations.
2. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (UNVFVT) was
established by General Assembly Resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981 to assist victims of
torture and their families. The Fund receives voluntary contributions from Governments, non-
governmental organizations and individuals, and provides grants to non-governmental
organizations that are involved in medical, psychological, social, economic, legal, and other
types of humanitarian services to the victims of torture. Resolution 36/151 provided that the
Fund should be administered in accordance with the United Nations Financial Regulations, by
the Secretary-General, with the advice of a Board of Trustees. The Secretary-General
appoints the Board, consisting of a chairman and four members with wide experience in the
field of human rights and who serve in their personal capacity.
3. The Secretary-General administers the Fund through the UNVFVT Secretariat, which
is part of the OHCHR Treaties and Commissions Branch, reporting directly to the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The Fund is administered on the basis of "Guidelines of
the Fund for the use of organizations" (Guidelines) approved by the Board and OHCHR.
UNOG receives the voluntary contributions on behalf of OHCHR and pays the grants as
certified by OHCHR. A summary of the number of projects and the total amount of grants
paid per biennium is presented as follows:
Biennium Total projects financed Total grants paid in million
US$
2000-2001 189 13.3
2002-2003 199 12.5
4. A draft of the report was shared with the Chief of Treaties and Commission Branch,
OHCHR on 2 September 2004, whose comments have been reflected in the report in italics. The
Treaties and Commission Branch has accepted most of the recommendations made and is in the
process of implementing them
II. AUDIT OBJECTIVES
5. The objective of this audit was to review the Fund's activities to determine:
(i) Compliance with UN Regulations and Rules and with the Guidelines of the
Fund for the use of organizations; and
(ii) Effectiveness and efficiency of the procedures for the approval and payments
of grants and financial reporting and monitoring of the Fund.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
III. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
6. The audit reviewed 35 out of the 199 projects that received grants amounting to $6.5
million during 2002-2003. The amount of the grants given to each selected project during this
period ranged from $10,000 to $500,000. The audit reviewed the Fund's existing and
proposed guidelines, procedures for approval, payment and accounting of grants and their
financial monitoring and evaluation. The auditors assessed the internal control mechanisms,
analysed financial reports, examined documents and interviewed responsible staff members.
7. OIOS had not conducted any previous audit of the Fund, except for the audit of the
receipt by UNOG of Trust Funds including this Fund. The Board of Auditors conducted an
audit of OHCHR trust funds. Their audit findings and recommendations have been considered
in this audit.
IV. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approval of grants
8. The Secretariat of the Fund receives applications for grants for projects by year-end.
The Secretariat pre-screens the projects and presents them to the Board of Trustees during
their annual meeting held in May. The Board, after reviewing the project documents,
recommends their approval and the amount of the grants. On the basis of these
recommendations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights approves the
projects on behalf of the Secretary-General.
9. According to paragraph 25 of the Guidelines, the amount requested of the Fund should
not exceed one third of the project's budget. The requesting grantees must provide proof that
other donors are contributing to the project to ensure that the project is not fully dependent on
the Fund. However, OIOS' review of the project files indicated that a significant number of
the selected project applications did not contain proof relating to other funding sources.
Furthermore, the Secretariat did not verify assertions about other funding sources, even if
there was adequate time before review by the Board. Furthermore, contrary to paragraph 27 in
the Guidelines, OIOS found that in a significant number of project proposals, the budget
showed a lump sum amount, instead of a detailed listing of expenditures to be covered by the
grant. OHCHR stated that the guideline requiring project applicants to provide proof that
other donors were contributing to their projects was adopted by the Board at its twenty-
second session in May 2003 and that this has been applied to the applications received from
November 2003.
10. The majority of the NGOs applied for grants not exceeding one third of the project
budget. However, the Board recommended amounts far below those requested. In 2002, in
108 of 176 projects, the amount of the approved grant was far below the grants requested.
Similarly, in 2003, in 157 out of 199 projects, the same trend prevailed. OIOS noted that the
Board did not establish a policy or basis for reducing the requested grants. Also, OIOS did not
see any indication that such reductions were adequately justified or that the grantees were
advised of the reasons. To cite an example of the trend, one NGO submitted a request for a
grant of $241,405 (31 per cent) for a project with a total budget of $781,000, the approved
grant was only $80,000 or approximately 10 per cent of the total budget of the project.
OHCHR needs to establish a basis for such reductions and ensure transparency in its approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
process. OHCHR clarified that the policy of the Board with regard to the size of the grants
has been to ensure that all requests are treated fairly through the division of the available
money to all admissible requests.
Recommendation:
The UNVFVT Secretariat of OHCHR in consultation with the
Board should establish clear guidelines to determine the size of the
grants, document the decisions taken and communicate them to the
grantees. The UNVFVT Secretariat should also establish
procedures to verify other funding sources of the projects (Rec.
01).
11. OHCHR stated that the Board of Trustees would be seized of the recommendations
once they are formally transmitted to OHCHR. OHCHR also required additional human
resources to undertake the verification of other sources of funding for the projects. OIOS
will retain the recommendation for a follow up of the outcome of the discussions of the
Board. OIOS also wishes to point out Recommendation No. 6 in its evaluation report on a
similar issue.
2. Pending grants
12. Generally grants are paid promptly after the High Commissioner has approved the
Board's recommendations. However, in certain circumstances, grants are kept pending for
reasons such as need for additional information or assessment by the Secretariat or any UN
office present in the field. OIOS noticed that the Guidelines do not establish a reasonable
time limit up to which an approved grant can be kept "pending". OIOS' review indicated
that there were 5 ($160,000) and 17 ($419,000) pending grants relating to the period 2001 and
2002 respectively. In the opinion of OIOS, approved grants should not be kept pending
beyond one year after the approval. After one year, the approval should lapse and funds
should be used for other projects.
13. OHCHR's practice of raising one blanket obligation (OBMO) for the total approved
grants, including pending grants, does not allow effective monitoring of payments of grants. It
also raises the risk that the pending grant could be paid to another grantee. In OIOS' opinion,
for each pending grant a separate obligation should be raised in the name of the specific
grantee, in order to ensure adequate follow-up and monitoring of the pending grants. OIOS
recommended that OHCHR should establish a time limit, such as one year from the time of
approval, for retaining a grant as "pending". Also, OHCHR should raise a specific obligation
for each of the pending grants for effective monitoring and follow-up.
14. In response, the UNVFVT Secretariat had already established a one-year time limit
for `pending' grants. With respect to the raising of a specific obligation for each pending
grant, OHCHR suggested that three obligations be raised, one for each category of grant,
i.e., prompt, pending and emergency. OHCHR proposed to attach a detailed table to each set
of obligations including all information relating to the grants, including the project number,
date, the amount to be paid, the payment number so as to facilitate follow up and monitoring.
This would be implemented from the 23rd Session of the Board. OIOS agrees with OHCHR's
suggestion and its implementation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
3. Emergency grants
15. According to the Guidelines, between sessions of the Board, a grantee can apply for an
emergency grant if the projects financed by the Fund encounters unforeseen financial
difficulties. According to established procedures, the Fund can provide an emergency grant on
the basis of the approval by the Chairman of the Board (for amounts up to $20,000) and two
other Board members (for amounts exceeding $20,000). Individual victims of torture can also
apply for an emergency grant provided they can produce evidence to that effect, and provided
that there is no project financed by the Fund that gives assistance to victims of torture in the
applicant's country. OHCHR amended the guideline to include the member of the Board of the
relevant geographical region in the approval of emergency grant from a particular region.
16. During the period 2001-2003, the Fund provided ten emergency grants. In two cases,
OIOS found that the grants were paid to an individual rather than an NGO. The individual, a
legal representative, in two claims of torture, received a total amount of $94,000 in five
instalments between February 2003 and May 2004.
17. The grantee requested an emergency grant from the Fund in December 2002 to meet
legal and related expenses for representing the assassination case of XXX, at the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights. The Fund's Secretariat, in consultation with the Chairman
of the Board, paid $20,000 in February 2003. According to the grantee's report, this amount
was spent to settle debts incurred in 2002. Subsequently, the grantee requested a
supplementary grant of $34,000 in February 2003. Although the Board met in May 2003, this
additional request was not submitted to the Board as a regular case, but was approved using
emergency procedures. The grantee was paid $20,000 in July 2003 and another $14,000 in
November 2003.
18. In January 2004, the same grantee requested an additional grant of $80,000 to
represent a case involving YYY. The Fund's Secretariat made a $20,000 payment in March
2004 after consultation with the Chairman of the Board. The Secretariat also advised the
grantee that for technical reasons, series of payments would only be made after the receipt of
the acknowledgement for the previous instalment. Subsequently, a payment of $20,000 was
made in May 2004. In OIOS' opinion, making a series of continued emergency payments to
an individual (who is not a victim) circumvented the limits set by the Guidelines. OIOS noted
that although an opportunity existed to consider and approve these requests as regular cases,
the grants were nonetheless all paid on an emergency case basis.
19. OIOS also noted that all ten cases that had been approved and granted as emergency
grants were not submitted to the subsequent Board meetings on an `ex-post facto' basis for
review. In OIOS' opinion, the Board should be informed on an ex-post facto basis, on all
emergency cases approved by the Chairman. OIOS recommended that all emergency requests
be taken into consideration and approved in accordance with the Guidelines and that the
Board should be informed of all emergency grants approved between sessions. The
recommendation has been implemented since the 23rd Session of the Board of Trustees held in
October 2004.
4. Financial reporting
20. The Guidelines stipulate that all grantees should provide either (a) a financial report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
on the use of the grant; (b) audited financial statements issued by an independent audit
authority, presented and endorsed by the grantees governing body or (c) an audit certificate
issued by an independent audit authority when the grantee is not required to have audited
financial statements (due to the absence of a national requirement). However, OIOS noticed
that the Guidelines lack clarity as to the format of the audited financial statements and audit
certificate. It is also not clear whether the grantee is required to submit the audited financial
statement relating to the entire project or to limit it to the particular grant provided by the
Fund. Therefore, as noticed from the files and the correspondence, it was not always clear to
the grantees which form and content of the audited annual financial statements were required.
As a result, OIOS noticed the following inadequacies:
� In many cases, it was not clear to the Secretariat whether the examiners who certified the
audited financial statements, were authorized to certify them under the respective national
laws.
� Many of the "audited" statements do not appear to be in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Standards.
� Audited financial statements submitted to the Fund do not provide sufficient information
as to whether the NGO has complied with the conditions of the grant, e.g. spending the money
for the intended purpose and in accordance with the approved budget.
� In a considerable number of projects (21 in 2002 and 30 in 2003), the amount of grants
approved by the Board was $15,000 or less. It may not be worthwhile to require a grantee to
submit audited financial statements for such small grants.
21. The deadline for submission of the financial report for the approved grant is 30
November of the year for which the grant was approved. If final reports cannot be provided by
that date an interim report should be submitted by that date and the final report issued no later
than 15 February of the following year. OIOS found that in 13 out of the 35 selected projects
(about 40 percent), grants were provided without recipients' submission of Audited Financial
Statements, contrary to the Guidelines. The revised draft guidelines dispensed with the
interim report and set the deadline for the final report to 1 February of the year following the
payment of the grant. Since grantees can spend the funds provided until 31 December of the
year, a deadline of 1 February does not still seem to be realistic. OIOS considers 31 March of
the following year a more realistic deadline for the submission of Audited Financial
Statements. OHCHR should not release further grants if financial reports for previous grants
are overdue.
Recommendation:
The UNVFVT Secretariat of OHCHR should establish a
standardized format for the audited financial statements on the use
of the grant in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Standards, and should not release further grants if financial reports
for previous grants are overdue (Rec. 02).
22. OHCHR agreed that a standardized format for the audited financial statements on the
use of grants should be adopted and requested OIOS to provide it with a proposed format.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
OHCHR also stated that no grants have been released since 2003 where financial reports
have not been received or if when received these are not satisfactory. Regarding the format,
OIOS suggests that OHCHR should consult with OHCHR and UNOG Financial Resources
Management Service and adopt the format. OIOS would retain the recommendation for the
review and adoption of the format.
5. Financial monitoring and evaluation
23. The core function of the Secretariat is to follow-up on pending grants, implement the
recommendations of the Board on the projects and inform the Board of follow up action. Up
to mid-2003, there was no systematic follow-up of the projects. Follow-up and monitoring
mechanisms were established later, which further need to be strengthened. The spreadsheet
that is currently used does not contain adequate grant data for monitoring and follow-up. The
Secretariat has relied mainly on the financial reports and the audited financial statements
provided by the grantees. Thus, the Secretariat cannot independently ensure that the project
has been implemented in full or in part; whether the grant was spent fully or whether there
was an unspent balance. For example, an amount of $50,000 paid to Project 199 remained
unspent and the Fund's Secretariat became aware of it only when the grantee approached the
Fund's Secretariat and requested guidance when the NGO's independent auditors disagreed to
include the grant as expenditure as it had not been spent. The unspent money was eventually
reimbursed to the Fund. OHCHR clarified that the provision of audited financial statements
allowing for identification of carry-over from a previous grant, were not required at the time
of this incident. In the light of current procedures, this incident could not recur.
24. According to the Guidelines, the members of the Board or the Secretariat staff may
visit a project to better understand and evaluate the work done by the grantee. OIOS noted
that the staff of the Secretariat had undertaken visits to the projects and submitted reports. In
OIOS' opinion, the reports were not comprehensive and did not include a detailed evaluation
of the projects. In OIOS' opinion, the capacity of the staff of the Fund's Secretariat needs
improvement particularly in project and financial monitoring and in the analysis of financial
reports. OHCHR should provide adequate training and evaluation guidelines to the staff to
make their field visit a more worthwhile exercise. OIOS recommended that adequate training
and tools should be provided to the staff of the UNVFVT Secretariat to enhance their capacity
in project monitoring and evaluation and in the analysis of financial reports. OHCHR
expected that in the course of 2005 more training and tools would be provided.
Recommendation:
The UNVFVT Secretariat of OHCHR should establish mechanisms
to ensure that the projects are adequately monitored and that the
funds are spent for the intended purposes (Rec. 03).
25. OHCHR stated that the bulk of work undertaken by the Secretariat constituted
monitoring of the projects. OHCHR welcomed any concrete suggestions on mechanisms that
could be introduced to ensure that projects are adequately monitored and evaluated. OIOS
wishes to point out that the implementation of the recommendations contained in its
evaluation report would strengthen the Fund management. OIOS would retain this
recommendation for a follow-up of the strengthening of the monitoring mechanisms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
V. FURTHER ACTIONS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS
26. OIOS monitors the implementation of its audit recommendations for reporting to the
Secretary-General and to the General Assembly. The responses received on the audit
recommendations contained in the draft report have been recorded in our recommendations
database. In order to record full implementation, the actions described in the following table
are required:
Rec. no. Action/document required to close the recommendation
1 Discussion and Board's decision on the recommendations.
2 Adoption of standard format for Financial Statement.
3 A copy of OHCHR reply to OIOS evaluation report and its review by
OIOS.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
27. I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance and cooperation extended to the
auditors by the staff of OHCHR and UNOG.
Egbert C. Kaltenbach, Director
Internal Audit Division II
Office of Internal Oversight Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------